1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to telecommunications systems, methods and devices. More particularly, exemplary embodiments of the invention concern systems and methods directed to selectively capturing consent to record communication sessions, capturing voice data during a communication session, such as a telephone call, and managing the recorded voice data.
2. Related Technology
As a result of various technological advances, the functionality and capabilities of traditional, landline telephones and wireless communication devices such as mobile telephones, “smart phones” and telephony-enabled personal digital assistants (PDAs) (hereinafter referred to as wireless communication devices) have correspondingly improved and expanded. In particular, a significant advancement in this regard is the relative increase in memory capacity associated with wireless communication devices. Such expanded memory capacity lends itself to a variety of useful applications. For example, improved memory capacity allows additional applications to be employed in connection with the wireless communication device, thereby enhancing its overall functionality. Another technical advancement in wireless communication is the ability to identify the geographical location of the user of a wireless communication device at any point in time. Together, these technologies enable a particularly useful application for communication devices, namely, the ability of users to record their conversations with other parties. As discussed below, this functionality is useful for a variety of reasons.
For example, a user may wish to record a conversation with his or her stockbroker so in the event that a dispute arises concerning directions given to the stockbroker by the user, a transcript of the recorded conversation can be used to resolve the dispute. On the reverse side, with increasingly stringent securities laws, the stock portfolio brokerage house may require traders to keep records of client communications. Currently, traders maintain records such as letters, email and instant messaging exchanges, as well as in-person client meetings. However, it would be beneficial to document a telephone conversation. Thus, one or both parties to a conversation may be motivated to preserve the conversation for future reference or for historical, archival, or other purposes. Additionally, journalists and reporters often find it useful to record conversations. Finally, it is frequently desirable for law enforcement personnel to be able to record telephone conversations since such conversations often provide useful evidence that can later be used in the prosecution of civil or criminal investigations.
While there is little question that the ability to record conversations conducted by way of devices such as wireless and landline telephones is useful in many cases, certain complications may arise when one of the parties to the conversation is either unwilling to have the conversation recorded or is unaware that the conversation is being recorded. In this regard, there are a variety of state and federal wiretap laws, violations of which can expose the recording party to both civil and criminal liability, that identify various circumstances under which such conversations may or may not be recorded. The situation is further complicated by the fact that wiretap laws may vary from one jurisdiction to another.
Thus, it is often the case that a party who wishes to record a telephone conversation, for example, cannot be certain that recordation of the telephone call is lawful unless that party is familiar with the applicable laws for the location from which the recording party is calling and knows with some degree of certainty the location of the other party to the call. Moreover, even if the prospective recording party were to request information from the other party concerning the location of that party, there may be little assurance that such other party will provide truthful information. Even where a party intends to provide accurate location information, that party may not know its location to the degree of accuracy necessary. In either case, the ability of the prospective recording party to ascertain the lawfulness of recording a conversation is compromised.
A related difficulty concerning the lawfulness of recording telephone conversations concerns the inherent ability of a wireless communication device user to move from one location to another during the pendency of the conversation. That is, because the location of one or both of the parties to the conversation, or to subsequent conversations, may change from day-to-day or hour-to-hour, the party desiring to record the conversation cannot be certain of the jurisdiction wherein the other party is located and, accordingly, can be severely handicapped in determining whether or not any particular conversation or portion of the conversation can be lawfully recorded. Moreover, the availability of technologies and features such as call forwarding and virtual phone numbers make it even more difficult for a party wishing to record a conversation to reliably determine the geographical location of the other party or parties in order to determine and comply with the applicable wire tap laws.
Further, even when the location of the parties to a conversation can be reliably located, the party desiring to record the conversation may be faced with a situation where the wiretap laws of one jurisdiction indicate that the recording of the conversation is lawful, while the wiretap laws of another jurisdiction in which one of the parties is located indicate that the recording of the conversation is unlawful. Such a situation may arise, for example, where one party to the conversation is in one state and the other party to the conversation is located in another state at the time the conversation takes place. In cases such as these, it may be difficult for the party desiring to record the conversation to reach a decision as to whether or not to record, since the recording may be illegal in one jurisdiction, but not in the other jurisdiction. Moreover, it is likewise unclear as to which jurisdictional wiretap laws should take precedence in the event of a conflict. A related consideration is that federal wiretap laws may apply to conversations that take place across state lines, or conversations where one party is located outside the United States.
A related concern is that the fact that wiretap laws may vary from one jurisdiction to another does not necessarily shield the recorder from liability if the recorder elects to record the conversation consistent with the more lenient wiretap laws. In particular, an aggrieved party may elect to ‘forum shop’ and bring an action in the jurisdiction with the relatively stricter wiretap laws.
Finally, as a practical matter, if the user is not a legal expert, it is difficult for a person to be knowledgeable of all of the wiretap laws in every single jurisdiction in which a potential conversant may happen to be present.
Problems such as those discussed above can prove highly detrimental. This is particularly true in the context of law enforcement efforts where, as noted above, recorded telephone conversations can provide valuable evidence. However, violations of the applicable statutes may result in the inadmissibility of such evidence.
In view of the foregoing, it would be advantageous to provide methods, systems and devices that can attempt to determine the geographical location of the parties to a communication session and, based on the applicable wiretap laws, facilitate the process of meeting the requirements for lawfully recording the voice data and then record the voice data. In the event that the system cannot reliably determine the geographical locations of the parties to the communication session, the current best way to ensure the legality of recording the voice data from a communication session is to obtain the explicit consent of the parties to the conversation, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the parties reside. Similarly, if the recording party wishes to obtain explicit consent from the parties to record the voice data, it would be advantageous to provide a system that can manage the process of obtaining and recording the consent manifested by the parties. The system should further provide for automatic notification to the parties that the voice data is being recorded. Finally, the system should also provide functionality that allows a recording party to record only his or her own voice and not the voices of the other parties to the communication session, as well as provide for the proper storage and handling of any voice data ultimately recorded.